Microsoft Patents 'IsNot'

[Paul Robson]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:35:01 +0000, Lenard Lindstrom wrote:

>> I bought a copy of this in I reckon about 1986ish. Visual Basic debuted in
>> 1991.
> 
> I would hope that a rewrite of Claim-2 of the patent is required before the patent
> is accept (if it is not outright rejected). Claim-2 is too vague to be meaningful.
> Proper definitions of "BASIC" and "derived" are missing. I imaging the patent is
> intended to protect Visual Basic.NET rather than restrict unrelated languages
> like Delphi and Python anyways.

It's blatantly obvious to me that the C# classes, ASP.NET etc. are knock
offs of the Delphi design. They also bear little resemblance beyond the
most basic syntactic stuff to VB6.0 let alone VB1.0